Jeremy Vaeni's article in issue #154

Kudos to Jeremy for writing an important article. It shows the dangers of projecting our subjective belief systems onto the blank slate that is human consciousness and experience. I think we have discussed the Emma Woods case elsewhere here on this forum. If ever there was an egregious example of investigatory malfeasance, this is it.

Okay, there are plenty of other examples. But our dear David Jacobs is a veritable over-achiever in the "let's see how badly I can corrupt the process" stakes. This guy is so far down a self-generated paranoid rabbit hole that he no longer has a grip on "reality" - whatever the hell that is.

But I also think that Al Lehmberg's rebuttal is a much needed counter-balance. Certainly I agree that hypnotic regression is a double edged sword. But it is only dangerous, truth subverting and/or malicious in the hands of an insensitive and delusional hairless ape like Jacobs. (Perhaps we might need to add Budd Hopkins to that list as well?)

I have said this elsewhere (and Alfred says it well in his article too): hypnosis is an important tool for prying open the subconscious mind. We have no other practical tools for this. Unfortunately, like a nail-gun, it is a very useful and practical tool that can become dangerous in the hands of a numb skull. Jacobs and Hopkins, take note.

I think Vaeni's use of Dr. Lilienfeld as a presumed palliative for hypnosis is disingenuous. It smacks of Fox News tactics, where a rabid anti-dialectic is offered up as the only "answer" to an issue. It is a bit like asking a rabid atheist like Richard Dawkins for a "balanced" assessment of religion.

Baloney. If John Mack were still around, perhaps he could have offered a proper balancing counter-point to Lilienfeld's profound bias.

Hypnosis is a very useful tool when used properly by folks who are aware and sensitive to its inherent pitfalls. We western post-moderns tend to think of the materially corporeal (empirical) as the final arbiter of what "is" or "isn't" "real". We tend to shrug off consciousness as the land of fuzzy notions and fantasy. Pardon my French, but BULLSHIT!

None of that "real" stuff happens at all without it passing through our consciousness and the distortion filters of our subjective belief systems. Nothing is "real" that is not a fragment of consciousness - period. Our subconscious is the repository of memory. But it does not reason. In fact, it is quite pliable and malleable. If prodded in the right way, it will serve up anything you wish it to. This is why we have so many people on death-row who "confessed" to things they did not actually do. They just got pushed too far until they served up whatever baloney their tormentors wanted to hear.

In fact, this is exactly what Jacobs does.

And if Budd Hopkins stands in defense of Jacobs (and his obviously seriously messed-up "methods") then perhaps Hopkins is guilty by association. Certainly they both adhere to the judgmental and paranoid notion that aliens are "evil trolls". This is an emotional and subjective designation that has no place in a presumably empirical study. It is the very model of an utter lack of objectivity. And thus, it has no place in a reasonable discussion of what is "real" or "true".

Anyway, thanks Jeremy for airing an important issue - even if I think your complete rejection of hypnosis is going a bit too far....

hypnosis is an important tool for prying open the subconscious mind. We have no other practical tools for this.

If true, then let's use nothing. Both Vallee and Ritzmann have found that simply talking to experiencers/witnesses, bringing them to the location, and giving it time, brings memories to the surface. Why do we need to go prying into peoples' subconscious with tools?

I think Vaeni's use of Dr. Lilienfeld as a presumed palliative for hypnosis is disingenuous. It smacks of Fox News tactics, where a rabid anti-dialectic is offered up as the only "answer" to an issue. It is a bit like asking a rabid atheist like Richard Dawkins for a "balanced" assessment of religion.

Right. A man who has spent his career in the mental health field who knows all about hypnosis, vs. a UFO blogger's opinion. These are not of equal value, no offense, Alfred. I mean my opinion isn't of equal value either, which is why I defer to the expert. Dawkins isn't a theologian so that's a bad analogy.

However you slice it the fact remains that the bulk of hypnosis in ufology is performed by laypeople with belief systems and no formal training in psychology. So whatever we've gathered from them should be tossed out. Sad but true.

Perhaps Mike was not quoting me as much as my deference to an adjacent expert of my own, Dr. Benjamin Simon. Here is perhaps a person with a more substantive contribution to efficacy in "treatment demonstrated" in real casework, I submit, with an eye to the improved quality of life as regards PTSD suffering combat soldiers... and alien abductees Betty and Barney Hill.

I think to ignore the advances in understanding we've made in brain/mind science, and specifically with regard to hypnosis, since the 1960s is a huge mistake.

Also, we don't know what Dr. Simon drudged up, frankly. Was it a psyop? Was it "aliens?" How much of it was dream material? Some of it? All of it? They didn't undergo hypnosis until years later after Betty started having nightmares.

We shouldn't be hanging our hat on one case. I didn't hang my hat on Lilienfeld--he actually represents the predominant view of experts. And now that I think of it, isn't it more a Fox News tactic to make a case against the mainstream based on one expert from 50 years ago while ignoring every discovery and refinement in between? (And Alfred, that's for Mike who said it, not you. I know you weren't thinking in those sorts of terms and neither was I.)

I'll close out here with Dr. Simon's findings. If he's the go-to guy, let's see what his conclusion about the Hills was. This is from the Betty Hill Wiki entry:

"After extensive hypnosis sessions, Dr. Simon concluded that Barney's recall of the UFO encounter was a fantasy inspired by Betty's recurrent dreams. Though Simon admitted this hypothesis did not explain every aspect of the experience, he thought it was the most plausible and consistent explanation."

"....Simon wrote an article about the Hills for the journal Psychiatric Opinion, explaining his conclusions that the case was a singular psychological aberration."

I suspect Simon is still pretty relevant, Jeremy, doing the work that put PTSD on the map, and with regard to reflexively dismissed "times past" I notice that Freud and Jung are still discussed as more than minimally pertinent to current affairs. Pertinent, even, given that T. McKenna described psychology as the softest of soft sciences —a morass of conflicting theories finding themselves at the expense of the persons allegedly served— where a third get better, a third get worse, and a third stay the same. Additionally, Simon also reported that Betty and Barney truly believed "whatever" occurred to them, really occurred to them... make of that what you will.

No, hypnosis? Not remotely valueless. ...And Not only understood as an insidious mechanism to make you see things which are not there, but as a mechanism to preclude you from seeing things which are.

Actually, most of Freud has been thrown out. They don't even teach Freud at Yale except as a footnote. But the greater point is that there have been new discoveries since the 1960s that negate hypnosis' value in memory retrieval.

Yes, Simon reported that the Hills believed what they recouped was real experience but he--the very expert you're citing--concluded otherwise. You can't say hypnosis recovers real memories, cite this man as your example, and just ignore his conclusion that hypnosis did not recover real memories.

"And Not only understood as an insidious mechanism to make you see things which are not there, but as a mechanism to preclude you from seeing things which are."

Right. Because hypnosis is a behavior modification technique being wrongly used as a memory retrieval technique, as stated in the article. Hypnosis has a value, it's just not in recovering memories.

Ignoring the "conclusions" of the experts? That's not entirely beyond me, Jeremy, and shouldn't be beyond you.

I graduated with a B. Science, summa, and have a pretty vast experiential body of personal data to help me weigh and sift for myself. Much like you, I like to think I can think on my own.

I point out that it was the "experts" saying we'd never go to the moon, fly in heavier than air craft, own personal computers, or make use the internet, eh? There's reason enough to be Arms Akimbo & Eyes Askance on the subject of experts. On Occam's rubric, too, sometimes complicating the hypothesis is required, as Occam does point out. He said, "Don't complicate... without necessity."

Too, I remind you Dr. "Jake" was one of these experts... until just recently.

That said, I submit you undersell the contributions of Freud, more than a mere footnote, a man enthralled with the bigoted and chauvinistic monsters of his time to provide, still, for the provenance of the only real backbone that Psychology enjoys today, perhaps. I can hardly blame Dr. Simon for his own conclusions... which were perhaps driven more by professional pragmatism than his real thoughts on the matter. I have to give K. Marsdan a Stan Friedman credit, themselves, for separating wheat from chaff on the B&BH Affair, as I submit that they're not just trying to sell books.

Like you, I'll believe what I find believable believing that what's submitted has progressive information along with a, for the moment, information I can discard. I'll be on my own recognizance.

Well, that's one way to avoid the issue. But again: You submitted a specialist to support your argument. However, that specialist doesn't actually support your argument. And in the course of 50+ years that specialist's specialty is shown to be all but useless in memory retrieval anyway. But we can't trust any of these specialists because we need to trust ourselves...unless they back up our belief. Then we believe them. To a point. To the point that they back up our belief. Then we ignore the rest because who trusts specialists?

This is not a case of specialists telling us what we can't accomplish with tools because they lack imagination and faith in humanity's ability to figure stuff out. This is a case of specialists forming consensus opinion around what the tool is and is not in the first place. Why do you want to hang onto something this dangerous in the first place when there are other ways? How about quiet contemplation? Meditation? Conversation? How about making peace with the lost memories instead of searching for them through mesmerization?

There are many way to avoid the issue, Jeremy. I offer I've used none of them here.

But again: You submitted a specialist to support your argument.

Yes... yes I did. He performed wonderfully. As a function of hypnosis he was able to effect memory retrievals that were useful to the improved quality of life for hundreds of soldiers suffering PTSD and the quality of life, I suspect, of the Hills. He then testified that the Hills were not lying. That's all I want from the good Doctor, his testimony that he doesn't believe the Hills were abducted by aliens is suspect and without value to me. You can ask him on cross examination. [g].

However, that specialist doesn't actually support your argument.

Yes. Yes he does. Insofar as he proves by example the efficacy of baggage-less hypnotic retrieval of uncomfortable memories for therapeutic purposes and supports the sincerity of the Hills, as do Marsdan and Friedman, my argument seems well served. Maybe you thought I was arguing something else.

And in the course of 50+ years that specialist's specialty is shown to be all but useless in memory retrieval anyway.

Again, a position not held by Simon and significant others.

But we can't trust any of these specialists because we need to trust ourselves...

These specialists are without sin and invariably infallible and incapable of error? They sound very Catholic. It remains we _must_ trust _ourselves_. I've a few years doing a pretty good job of it.

...unless they back up our belief.

Corroborations fitting your own gut feelings are hard to deny. Perhaps we should deny a corroboration... because its a corroboration?

...Then we believe them. To a point. To the point that they back up our belief. Then we ignore the rest because who trusts specialists?

That's a clever little twist of bogus logic you execute so well to put your spin on my position, but it's your characterization after all and not relevant to me. Ninety percent of everything is crap, as you may have begun to surmise, and that goes for the proclamations of pundits and pedants or erstwhile specialists. I'll determine what's valuable and just fool myself that I'm ahead of my time, eh? Not Bush, I'm the decider. Decided once about you, lo these many years ago. I wasn't wrong there.

This is not a case of specialists telling us what we can't accomplish with tools because they lack imagination and faith in humanity's ability to figure stuff out.

I'm not convinced of that myself.

This is a case of specialists forming consensus opinion around what the tool is and is not in the first place.

Well, they can get together to compile and contrive whatever floats a reductionist's pillbox boat, but I'll decide if they're taking on water or not. Hey, it's the job I've set for myself.

Why do you want to hang onto something this dangerous in the first place when there are other ways?

...Because in the hands of the "baggage-less" it can be made to work in a demonstrable efficacious-ness. Plenty of danger everywhere, Jeremy, danger not mitigated by the workmen blaming, ignoring, or dismissing their tools.

How about quiet contemplation? Meditation? Conversation? How about making peace with the lost memories instead of searching for them through mesmerization? There are lot's of techniques that end in -ation that we can use.

How can you make peace with something you don't take pains to individually identify? Though, by all means, lets avail ourselves of the whole bag of "TION" rubrics as long as any one of them or collection of same is not somehow legislated into the "one" true path of some tedious, and always hypocritical, ideology, eh?

Where did I lose you Dave? Did you have a specific question? I know this is easy for me to say, but I thought I was being pretty straight-forward... I had two pieces in the current UFOM. I wrote a little bit how this suggestibility was possible in the other piece. It's called Conundrums In Cognitive Dissonance, Part Two

hypnosis is an important tool for prying open the subconscious mind. We have no other practical tools for this.

If true, then let's use nothing. Both Vallee and Ritzmann have found that simply talking to experiencers/witnesses, bringing them to the location, and giving it time, brings memories to the surface. Why do we need to go prying into peoples' subconscious with tools?

To somebody, such as yourself, who has had a long interest in the alien abduction phenomenon, I should think the answer to this question is quite obvious: because the vast majority of abductees have very little memory of their experiences and are unable to add anything of value to their memories through the softball methods you suggest.

The truth is, the abductee who spontaneously remembers their experiences is a rare creature indeed. I don't think I need to point out that the whole abductee paradigm would have no corpus delecti at all if not for the judicious use of hypnosis.

Betty and Barney Hill, Herb Schirmer, Betty Andreasson, Travis Walton and practically every subsequent case offered by Hopkins, John Mack and numerous other abduction researchers owe their existence to hypnosis. Perhaps Hopkins is not far off the mark when he suggests that the entire paradigm loses credibility with the rejection of hypnosis as a tool.

So, are you just "making up" your own "experiences" based on a bunch of trumped up evidence offered by fantasists who use the delusional hypnosis as a tool? Or, is their an actual basis for the striking similarities found in those presumably confabulated stories?

Jeremy Vaeni wrote:

I think Vaeni's use of Dr. Lilienfeld as a presumed palliative for hypnosis is disingenuous. It smacks of Fox News tactics, where a rabid anti-dialectic is offered up as the only "answer" to an issue. It is a bit like asking a rabid atheist like Richard Dawkins for a "balanced" assessment of religion.

Right. A man who has spent his career in the mental health field who knows all about hypnosis, vs. a UFO blogger's opinion. These are not of equal value, no offense, Alfred. I mean my opinion isn't of equal value either, which is why I defer to the expert. Dawkins isn't a theologian so that's a bad analogy.

No, I think the analogy is dead on. Lilienfeld is a rabid disbeliever in the use of hypnosis as a tool - in the same way Dawkins is a rabid disbeliever in God.

By your argument, you would have to think that Phil Klass is the final word on the reality of UFOs. Sorry, the analogy fits.

The point is, for every Dr. Lilienfeld, there are others out there of equal "expertise" who think it is a useful tool. The fact that you only use a guy who agrees with your predisposed opinion is precisely the Fox News tactic I mentioned above.

"Fair and balanced", just like Bill O'Reilly.

Jeremy Vaeni wrote:

However you slice it the fact remains that the bulk of hypnosis in ufology is performed by laypeople with belief systems and no formal training in psychology. So whatever we've gathered from them should be tossed out. Sad but true.

I have no argument that the majority of abduction research is performed by laypeople. Some laypeople are smarter than many professionals. Some aren't. That is the nature of things. Just because there are idiots doing some of the work does not mean that the tools they use are "bad". It just means that some of the people using the tools don't actually know how to use them properly.

That is not an argument against nail-guns. That is an argument that people should be instructed on the dangers and pitfalls of using nail-guns before they are allowed to use them in the real world.

BTW Jeremy, I said that your article was an important one that I whole-heartedly endorse (except for your final conclusion that hypnosis is an "evil" which should be eradicated). I should think that should count for something.

It inspired me to start this thread in the first place. Kudos to you for writing it.

the vast majority of abductees have very little memory of their experiences and are unable to add anything of value to their memories through the softball methods you suggest.

This is untrue. And I'd rather use "softball" methods than destroy peoples' lives/implant false suggestions/co-create bogus scenarios. The truth is, the abductee who spontaneously remembers their experiences is a rare creature indeed.

Again, this is NOT THE TRUTH, although the hypnotists would love for you to believe this.I don't think I need to point out that the whole abductee paradigm would have no corpus delecti at all if not for the judicious use of hypnosis.

You mean the modern myth of little alien doctors? You're right. You mean anything else? You're wrong.Betty and Barney Hill, Herb Schirmer, Betty Andreasson, Travis Walton and practically every subsequent case offered by Hopkins, John Mack and numerous other abduction researchers owe their existence to hypnosis.

I think, at least, Travis Walton would take exception to that.Perhaps Hopkins is not far off the mark when he suggests that the entire paradigm loses credibility with the rejection of hypnosis as a tool.

HIS paradigm loses credibility, sure. Wow, Mike, between this and the above I'm starting to wonder why you think my article was important in the first place. You've learned nothing it seems. And FYI: Hopkins' work is every bit as valid as Jacobs' at this point, it's just that his story has thus far gone untold.So, are you just "making up" your own "experiences" based on a bunch of trumped up evidence offered by fantasists who use the delusional hypnosis as a tool? Or, is their an actual basis for the striking similarities found in those presumably confabulated stories?

Here's an option: Real experiencers go to hypnotists who carve out the piece of their whole story that fits the hypnotists' belief system. Whether this is a conscious choice or not is up for debate. And that's just one option.

Mike, are you a researcher? I don't know anything about your background. When you say "the truth is" and the such, where are you getting that information? And since your whole shtick is thinking outside the box, how do you qualify that when you're actually defending the ufological box here and quoting Budd Hopkins on the overreaching value of hypnosis?

Alfred,some times (due to the pain) I take mind altering drugs, as you know they really don't take care of the pain. What they do is dumb down the brain. That bieng so I must take great care in studing the things that I read. My understanding some times goes astray. In this case some where after the first sentence or two the old bean stopped. It turned into a "I read what you said,but it was more then I could understand."I know that you are very astute and very well versed in the english language. Some times I need you to brake it down to the lowest level, so I can understand It. Kinda like walking into a room full of french men, you know they are making noise, you just don't know about what.

I'm going to bow out here. Let me leave you with some food for thought. The first is a page out of Jacques Vallee's latest, Wonders In The Sky. On page 135-136 he's talking about "[t]he most authoritative and influential treatise on the subject of witchcraft," Malleus Meleficarum (translation: The Witches Hammer), written in 1486.

On Page 136 we read:

"Of all the issues dealt with in the Malleus Maleficarum, the most prominent were (1) whether humans could feasibly procreate with demons and bear their children, and (2) whether people were taken physically by demonic beings and transported to secret locations, or if it was all in the mind.

"In other words, five hundred years ago they were debating the exact same issues as ufologists today. It may seem a horrid, unfair thought, but it is difficult to read ancient books such as the Malleus Maleficarum or Remy's later De Demonolatriae (1595) without coming away with the impression that today's leading abduction researchers, who abuse witnesses with dubious hypnotic techniques to extract information, would have enjoyed a successful collaboration with the chief inquisitors of yore."

No one can accuse Dr. Jacques Vallee of being anti-dialectic.

Lastly, here for your viewing pleasure is a paper out of Berkley on the uselessness (and harmfulness) of hypnosis-as-memory-retrieval-tool. I do not see Dr. Lilienfeld's work cited here, so presumably it has a better chance of reading fair-and-balanced to some of the stalwarts here:

"Of all the issues dealt with in the Malleus Maleficarum, the most prominent were (1) whether humans could feasibly procreate with demons and bear their children, and (2) whether people were taken physically by demonic beings and transported to secret locations, or if it was all in the mind.

"In other words, five hundred years ago they were debating the exact same issues as ufologists today. It may seem a horrid, unfair thought, but it is difficult to read ancient books such as the Malleus Maleficarum or Remy's later De Demonolatriae (1595) without coming away with the impression that today's leading abduction researchers, who abuse witnesses with dubious hypnotic techniques to extract information, would have enjoyed a successful collaboration with the chief inquisitors of yore."

Thanks for posting that excerpt. I'm definitely going to have to grab this book.

As far as the hypgnosis of abductees, I'm still of the opinion that it may be useful, but not when done by UFO researchers; too many preconceived notions.

Here's a pdf of Montague Summers' 1928 English translation of the Malleus Maleficarum, for those interested.

Here's an option: Real experiencers go to hypnotists who carve out the piece of their whole story that fits the hypnotists' belief system. Whether this is a conscious choice or not is up for debate. And that's just one option.

Here is where your entire argument goes up in smoke. A competent hypnostist learns to ask neutral questions and not put their agenda into the questioning of the subject. It is really a no-brainer: if you want to access the contents of a subject's subconscious memory then you let the subject do the talking and supply the data.

How do I know this? Because I had several years of practical experience both as a subject and a facilitator of hypnotic regressions. For a time I was interested in getting a hypnosis certification. As part of that study, I went to see nearly a dozen different hypnotists in order to experience hypnosis and to monitor the induction and interrogation techniques of different practitioners. Among them were a classically educated psychiatrist and a marriage and family counselor who was a licensed hypnotherapist. The others had varying levels of certification and experience, including laypeople with no certificates. My favorite practitioner was one of the latter.

The resulting scenarios only become corrupted with the facilitator's belief systems if the practitioner is incompetent and does not know how to do a proper interrogation.

As I said previously, John Mack was a model example of a competent hypnotist who brought no agenda to his sessions. Like the nail gun, there is a right and a wrong way to use the tool. Your theoretical example only covers the wrong way.

You are allowed to hate hypnosis if you like. But know that your viewpoint is not the only one. In my experience, it simply is not true.

Jeremy Vaeni wrote:

Mike, are you a researcher? I don't know anything about your background. When you say "the truth is" and the such, where are you getting that information? And since your whole shtick is thinking outside the box, how do you qualify that when you're actually defending the ufological box here and quoting Budd Hopkins on the overreaching value of hypnosis?

I am a person who has had a life-long interest in UFOs. I am not a researcher in the sense that I do investigations or collect case files. Over time I have recognized that being a classic researcher is an open ended pursuit and not a way to find answers. That frustration has lead many people to abandon UFOs altogether. But my interest remains strong and I do read a lot of UFO books and stuff online.

The reason I support the UFOlogical "party line" regarding abduction cases is the same reason I support certain other ideas about UFOs: because there is strong corroboration between a large number of cases that have accrued over time. Corroboration suggests that there is a consistent and persistent phenomenon. Your quote from Jacque Vallee's book is yet another case in point.

So to be clear: You think that my entire argument has gone up in smoke even though I said, "Here's an option... And that's just one option?"

A.) It's one option. B.) Even that is not up in smoke. Perhaps this is best dealt with in my vlog where I don't have to keep typing, so I'll go respond there with The Jeff.

Yes, the Vallee quote does illustrate that something has been going on for many moons. It does not illustrate little gray doctors from another planet doing sex experiments on people. THAT is cultural contamination promoted in part by...yes, friends...hypnosis.

Please, continue to ignore the article I linked to from Berkley. The article with sources cited of real studies and everything. And please continue to ignore what Vallee was actually saying about hypnosis.

Really, this says it all to me: "The others had varying levels of certification and experience, including laypeople with no certificates. My favorite practitioner was one of the latter."

Lay people with no formal training in psychology, dealing with doctor/patient transference, and so forth. Fan-friggen-tastic.

Mike,I am niether a scientist or a researcher (other then casualy) But I am a degreed civil engineer. One who specialized in 750 square miles of storm water (the whole county). I am retired now and can persue my quest for the knowledge I need. I believe in hard data. What I have here is a collection of people, who like myself have seen or experienced some thing beyond the normal existiance of the average man. This experience has lead to the firm belief of U.F.O. and aliens. How ever while thier data like mine can not be verified. The preponderance of thier testimony lends it's self establishing hard data by itself. The debunkers can not point to the astronauts and call them liers as they do with us. The hard data of the pictures is not easly explained away.Whle I have never come into contact with any aliens, that I know of. I am firmly convienced of thier existance.I know of no alien conspirancy with our goverment, yet there are those, whom I respect, that have come forth and said that there is.When bill and the boys went about checking on the existance of the various bases scattered about the United States, I know for a fact that those bases do exsist. Any one who can read a flight map can see them as no fly zones.So then what is my hard data. Only what I have seen scattered through out my years.Occasionally I will joust with some one here, but only in fun.Jeremy Vaeni's artical requires some research. I believe he wrote it with good intentions (and for a little money)

Mike,I am niether a scientist or a researcher (other then casualy) But I am a degreed civil engineer. One who specialized in 750 square miles of storm water (the whole county). I am retired now and can persue my quest for the knowledge I need. I believe in hard data. What I have here is a collection of people, who like myself have seen or experienced some thing beyond the normal existiance of the average man. This experience has lead to the firm belief of U.F.O. and aliens. How ever while thier data like mine can not be verified. The preponderance of thier testimony lends it's self establishing hard data by itself. The debunkers can not point to the astronauts and call them liers as they do with us. The hard data of the pictures is not easly explained away.Whle I have never come into contact with any aliens, that I know of. I am firmly convienced of thier existance.I know of no alien conspirancy with our goverment, yet there are those, whom I respect, that have come forth and said that there is.When bill and the boys went about checking on the existance of the various bases scattered about the United States, I know for a fact that those bases do exsist. Any one who can read a flight map can see them as no fly zones.So then what is my hard data. Only what I have seen scattered through out my years.Occasionally I will joust with some one here, but only in fun.Jeremy Vaeni's artical requires some research. I believe he wrote it with good intentions (and for a little money)

Davefair

Dave, I have to agree on all counts. Well, except for the "money" motive. I still think Jeremy's article is an important one, in illustrating an improper use of hypnosis.

There are right ways of doing things and there are equally available examples of how that is accomplished. The superstitious belief that hypnosis is some kind of voodoo specially designed to corrupt our minds is common in our culture. It is simply a misunderstanding of what it is. Would you like to experience hypnosis? Sit in front of your TV set for five minutes. That is hypnosis: the bad kind that is specially designed to influence your subconscious mind.

Sadly, using hypnosis as a tool for filling out an investigator's beliefs systems is not just bad form, it is delusional. Many years ago I stopped reading David Jacobs' books because it was clear that he had lost any semblance of objectivity. The Emma Woods fiasco is the inevitable result of his obsession with his own beliefs and, frankly, paranoia. The guy is a train-wreck and he infects others with his wacked out mental health. That is bad and important to understand no matter what you think that ultimately means.

Sadly, the best example (I am aware of) portraying the proper way to approach the use of hypnosis in understanding the phenomenon was run-over and killed by a drunk driver in London several years ago. UFOlogy lost a brilliant, authoritative, courageous and outstanding exemplar when John Mack died. In my opinion, the loss to the abduction phenomenon is inestimable.

Jeremy, honestly, it is okay for me to hold a different opinion than your own. My opinion is based on my personal experiences. That does not make me stupid as you are so quick to imply. It only means that I hold a differing opinion.

I didn't mean to imply that you are stupid. I meant to imply that you are ignoring the facts so you can hang onto your belief about a harmful technique that doesn't belong in ufology and the lore it has produced.

I have read through this entire thread and the entire article it was named for and I do know one thing . . . I wouldn't allow anyone to try hypnosis on me who wasn't a licensed therapist.

That being said, a person suffering from the issues of an Emma Wood may also have a fear that a true licensed therapist might suggest time in an institution. Not saying that would happen, but trying, just a smidgen, to 'walk in her shoes'. So, an Emma Woods seeks out someone who would be not only helpful, but one who hopefully is sympathetic. If everything that in the article happened as said, and I have no reason to believe it didn't, I feel so sorry for that poor woman. She put her trust into that man, and he acted so heinously.

I am so very glad this issue here has developed only into an argument about hypnosis as a tool and not for or against her or him. From what I read, if it is all fact, that man is truly a danger to everyone who comes to him for help. I never thought about it, until I read the article, that hypnosis is much like a gun: Perhaps it can be a worthwhile tool, but not just everyone should be doing it. One must have proper training and testing and accreditation before being allowed to practice.

I have to interject one thing, and this is only from my experience, and way too small a cross section to truly have any significance overall, but in my life, I have not met one person studying psychology who was not doing so because their life was totally messed up, so they were learning it try and help out other messed up people. It may just be me, but I've always thought that was a recipe for disaster.

I have read through this entire thread and the entire article it was named for and I do know one thing . . . I wouldn't allow anyone to try hypnosis on me who wasn't a licensed therapist.

That being said, a person suffering from the issues of an Emma Wood may also have a fear that a true licensed therapist might suggest time in an institution. Not saying that would happen, but trying, just a smidgen, to 'walk in her shoes'. So, an Emma Woods seeks out someone who would be not only helpful, but one who hopefully is sympathetic. If everything that in the article happened as said, and I have no reason to believe it didn't, I feel so sorry for that poor woman. She put her trust into that man, and he acted so heinously.

I am so very glad this issue here has developed only into an argument about hypnosis as a tool and not for or against her or him. From what I read, if it is all fact, that man is truly a danger to everyone who comes to him for help. I never thought about it, until I read the article, that hypnosis is much like a gun: Perhaps it can be a worthwhile tool, but not just everyone should be doing it. One must have proper training and testing and accreditation before being allowed to practice.

Agreed...

steven8 wrote:

I have to interject one thing, and this is only from my experience, and way too small a cross section to truly have any significance overall, but in my life, I have not met one person studying psychology who was not doing so because their life was totally messed up, so they were learning it try and help out other messed up people. It may just be me, but I've always thought that was a recipe for disaster.

And, agreed.

Actually, for a long time I thought that everyone in that field was a bit screwy in the head, but I did eventually meet the exception to the rule. The guy was like 100 years old, an original member of the Fortean Society, and I'm pretty sure he entered psychology a little later in life. I never got his thoughts on hypNOtherapy, but if I had to guess, he'd probably laugh.

But, this reminds me of something I posted in another thread on Emma Woods...

If you are being hypnotized by someone who isn't a mental health pro, you probably don't have much legal recourse if they decide to completely screw with your head. Sure, you can try to bring it to court, but more than likely a judge won't want to hear a sob story from someone who let just any old random fool attempt to use hypnotherapy on them.

Perhaps I think too litigiously, but getting screwed by the law is certainly a factor in stopping people from doing bad things. If Jacobs was a psychologist, those recordings Emma Woods made would be a goldmine in court. But he's not, so she is pretty much S.O.L.